3 ms·
I don't think it has anything to do with resources. It's more to do with anyone in the galaxy can decide to end your planet, do you really want to bet your civ
by sliken 3y ago
I don't think it has anything to do with resources. It's more to do with anyone in the galaxy can decide to end your planet, do you really want to bet your civilization on ALL other civilizations being friendly? It could be rational, game theory, "grabby aliens", religious reasons, etc.
The other issue is you could meet a perfectly sane looking alien civilization, but lose track of them, and before you check in again (say after 100 years) they could be a completely different civilization. Just imagine if the USA can go from far Obama to Trump in a year (or a day), how far you might get in 100 years.
Combine the high latency communications and impossible defense against a good offense (near light speed weapons) leads to the dark forest hypothesis.
- tetron 3y agoYes, my recollection of the books is that it isn't about the need to keep consuming resources, it is about the premise that it is impossible to judge if another civilization is hostile or going to turn hostile If your civilization can annihilated in a single strike, the only civilizations that survive have the strategy to a) avoid being detected and b) destroy anyone who has detected them (which results in destroying everyone, to eliminate uncertainty). The idea being that assuming the actual survival of your species is at the top of your moral pyramid, all kinds of atrocities in its defense are justifiable.
- sliken 3y agoWell it's all a side effect of nearly unlimited energy (I.e. enough to accelerate a mile wide asteroid up to nearly light speed) which cause asymmetry in warfare favoring offense. I'm sure humans would kill anyone outside their village/city if defense was impossible and anyone that wanted to kill your city/village just had to push a button.